I see you chose to play to the cheap seats and take the inflammatory angle of telling your readers Mr. Romney earned a whopping $22,000,000, while paying a grossly unfair, out of touch, implicitly devious and one can only assume, paltry $3,000,000 for a 14% tax rate.

What would be refreshing however is an honest assessment of Mr. Romney’s tax returns by manipulative media characters such as yourself.

While your attention grabbing headline number of a 13% tax on Mr. Romney’s income is accurate on a gross income level, NO ONE in the US pays income taxes on their gross income. I know for a fact YOU don’t. So wouldn’t it be fair to assess Mr. Romney on what folks actually do, as opposed to what you deem they think they should do?

In a few simple minutes I was able to find out Mr. Romney’s tax rate on his TAXABLE income (you know, the amount required by law after LEGAL deductions from gross income) is in reality 17.5%.

That is HIGHER than the 15% Cap Gains rate you tried to show Mr. Romney paying less than. It’s also higher than the pathetically biased and pseudo-alarming slant you apply, as shown in an excerpt from your article below:

14% is a lot lower than the 35% tax bracket that most people assume those who make a lot of money pay.

It's also lower than the 15% capital gains and dividends tax rate.

It's also lower than the 15% income tax rate paid by Americans who make between $8,500 and $34,500 per year.

So, you can understand why some people think Mitt Romney pays a pretty low tax rate.

--------------------

Since you have the complete information on Mr. Romney’s return, it would be interesting to see his Itemized Deductions, particularly his Charitable Donations. As I understand it, Mr. Romney donates approximately 10% of his income in the form a tithe. If he uses his top line number, he’s donating $2.2 million – on a taxable income basis it would be $1.7 million. Either number is generous and even more so when compared to the model thin contributions made by such heralded political figures like Joe Biden and Bill Clinton – who notoriously donate hundreds and their used underwear.

I am realistic enough to know bottom feeders such as you will not change and will continue to try and manipulate opinion by using half-truths, guile and deceit. I just wanted you to know, there are fair-minded and decent people out there who don’t buy into your swill and will expose you, even in small measure, whenever possible.

Doug NYC GOP

For the folks who would like to read all of Mr. Blodget’s trash, just clink the link below.

Actually, Mitt's "gross income from all sources" was $27 million (per later entries in the return). I went with AGI, because that's usually what people focus on.

As for the "legal deductions," I think it's fair to calculate the tax rate before those. And I also think folks would also find a 17.5% tax rate pretty low, too.

I don't have a problem with Romney making a lot of money. And he certainly paid a boatload of taxes. But I also think a lot of Americans would love to pay that low a tax rate--but can't, because they either don't know how (can't afford the advisors necessary to set up investment vehicles like Mitt's) or because they earn the money through regular income.

Henry

My response:

Henry,

I appreciate the follow up, but it does nothing to eliminate the flawed bias you display.

If you want Romney and others in his income bracket to pay a higher a share – that’s fine and it is your opinion.

But to post a seedy article such as this, implying Romney is somehow taking advantage, is intellectually and morally wrong.

Why is it “fair” to calculate the tax rate before deductions? To get a more outrageous number you can exploit?

It doesn’t provide the whole, legal picture, so it smells of chicanery.

You are obviously an intelligent man and a journalist of some sorts, so you should know better than to provide your readers with your hand crafted information.

As far as Americans wishing to pay a lower rate but not being able to afford “advisors” – that’s a bogus and insincere claim proffered by someone who traffics in class envy.

A little news item for you Henry - Approximately 49% of Americans pay NO INCOME TAXES.

For the remainder – most of which have fairly simple returns, there is HR Block, Turbo Tax and the neighborhood Accountant. To portray the middle class American taxpayer as being a victim of the unscrupulous rich because they can’t get the same level of advice is age old trick for feeble minds to fall for.

Most us pay a lower rate on their taxable than Mr. Romney. I work for salary, own a home and have limited deductions. You know the kind of guy you are pandering to.

After taking my legal deductions, pointed out to me by Turbo Tax - I pay a tax rate of 11% on my taxable income.

And I hold no envy towards Mr. Romney.

You can try and squirm your way out of this, but it won’t work. Even the folks on your comment board aren’t having any of it.

I didn't wake up this morning spoiling for a fight. My "attack dog" style has been on hiatus for the past 6 or 7 weeks due to work. But I am glad to see uon my return, old liberal apologists like yourself are still skulking the walls.

I referenced Henry's facial features because they mirror the motives and style of his article. Yo should go to the site and see the pettyy, negative stuff they put up.

And spare me your concern about being positve. If I put up a pro-Romney post about his vacation as you suggest, you'd be accusing me of hero-worship and bashing Romney for his successful lifestyle - which is quite simple when you boil it down.

So go peddle your old fish somewhere else and have a safe and Happy 4th of July.

1) I'm not a liberal; that should be clear to all by now. Neither am I a Progressive or Socialist.

2) I would never attack any piece regarding the candidate's family or his lifestyle. That's NOT my business. I have no issue with folks being rich. I have praised Ann Romney in the past for her courage in fighting her illness.

And you also have a safe & happy 4th of July! Let's agree to fight hard to keep our freedoms & liberty.

Here's another great example of Socialism in Europe. While folks are arguing over an individual's tax rate, you overlook the possibility that the Federal Gov't will initiate a tax on owning any assets. All the commentators & pundits haven't even begun to think about the ramifications of the new found taxing authority of the Federal Gov't except for Libertarians.

"With the Great June Socialist Revolution spilling over into July, here are some details as they become available from France:

•FRANCE TO HAVE NEW TAX RATE OF 45% FOR WEALTHY•FRANCE TO TAX INCOME OF MORE THAN EU1 MLN AT 75%, AYRAULT SAYS•FRANCE TO TAX CAPITAL INCOME AT SAME LEVEL AS WAGES•FRANCE TO RAISE TAXES FOR LARGE COMPANIES, BANKS, OIL FIRMSBut... FRANCE TO ANNUL PLANNED VAT INCREASE PLANNED BY SARKOZY"

And as I mentioned on the chat box, Sarkozy's home has been raided by the French Police: